MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016075062 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13040069

Dynamic Spillovers between Gulf Cooperation Council’s Stocks, VIX, Oil and Gold Volatility Indices

2020· article· en· W3016075062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah Alqahtani, Julien Chevallier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityStock (firearms)EconomicsStock marketFinancial economicsFinancial crisisMonetary economicsStock market indexStock market volatilityEconometricsGeographyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the conditional correlations between the stock market returns of countries that are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The innovative aspects of the paper consist of focusing on three volatility indices: the oil (OVX), gold (GVZ), and S&P500 (VIX) markets (considered in log-difference). We use weekly data and resort to DCC-GARCH modeling. The novelty of the paper consists in revealing that: (i) GCC stock market returns are negatively correlated with each of the volatility measures, and the correlations are stronger during crisis periods; (ii) GCC stock returns are mostly correlated with oil shocks; and (iii) Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the most responsive to all shocks among the GCC countries, while Bahrain correlates weakly to shocks in oil, gold, and VIX. The most striking results feature extra sensitivity of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in terms of volatility indices, which should be the foremost concern of policymakers and banking analysts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207